Why can't we all get along?

Solution: one state named "Palestein"

It looks like Gamblor's link was a bit of a dud all round. I don't know where Gamblor gets this sovereign right stuff from. The Jewish homeland was first mooted in the Balfour Declaration and the British deemed that had been accomplished by all the immigration. White Paper 1939 :

"Section I. The Constitution: It stated that with over 450,000 Jews having now settled in the mandate, the Balfour Declaration about "a national home for the Jewish people" had been met"

Lolwut? Did you read the report or did you just dismiss it because you didn't like the conclusions?

Ah yes, the non-legally binding white paper signed that explicitly limited immigration to israel of Jews only, because the supremacist arabs violently revolted against the British for letting so many of those god damned dirty jews into the mandate.

I am going to shamelessly steal this.

That is awesome. Is it original?

Nothing is original these days, especially not that. He may have thought it up himself before hearing it though.

That's a great shame (and an interesting fact). With very large organisations it is almost inevitable that at some stage a small number will do terrible things. But what about the overwealming majority of their work, and their objectives? Even Gamblor says that "The Red Cross has obviously done tons of incredible work". Imagine that!

No, of course I don't think that any one group is 100% unassailable 100% of the time.

You keep denigrating their conclusions while conveniently ignoring the point I make that the U.N. and other groups come to exactly the same conclusion about Palestinian suffering. I seriously can't believe you continue to deny that this suffering is not a reality.


[Israel is orders of magnitude more powerful than Palestine in every way - militarily, economically, diplomatically (thanks to the U.S.)]
I don't see how your nitpicking changes the overall point I'm making here? The point being that the side that is i) FAR more powerful and ii) the occupying force has responsibilites they need to face. Responsibilities for the current situation and responsibilities for improving things.


[Israel is an invading, occupying force]
Not legally? What about in reality?

Israeli settlements are illegal.

The International Court of Justice, the U.N. Security Council, and the U.N. General Assembly have all determined this.

In 1948 their representative to the UN security council defined the Jewish state as "the area outlined in the map appended to the resolution of 29 November 1947" but they have backtracked on this since. They seem to make it up as they go along.

I thought it myself. Quite possible that someone else has said this but I haven't heard it until now.

The joke last got a good airing on Jon Stewart's Daily Show last year when the Palestinians went to the UN for recognition as a state.

Israel has comitted a number of crimes against humanity only possibly rivaled by the US. The creation of the state of Israel was a heinous crime that violated international and humanitarian laws and it has continued upon this path. It is very comparable with Nazi-germany, let me quote a jewish concentration-camp survivor Dr Shlomo Shmelzman;

"In my childhood I have suffered fear, hunger and humiliation when I passed from the Warsaw Ghetto through labour camps to Buchenwald. Today as a citizen of Israel I cannot accept the systematic destruction of cities, towns and refugee camps. I cannot accept the technocratic cruelty of the bombing, destroying and killing of human beings. I hear too many familiar sounds today, sounds which are being amplified by the war.
I hear "dirty Arabs" and I hear "dirty Jews".
I hear about closed areas and I remember ghettos and camps.
I hear "two legged beasts" and I remember "Untermenschen"
I hear about tightening of the siege, clearing the area, pounding the city into submission, and I remember suffering, destruction, death, blood and murder.
Too many things in Israel remind me of too many things in my childhood."

This is not about a war, or a conflict. It's about a systematic and long-going cleansing of a people. Pretty much the whole world also comdemns Israel for their actions and countless resolutions and voices have been raised against Israel but they always fail because of the US veto. There were no valid arguements for justifying an Israeli states back then, there are no justification for their actions today. Sionism is a cancer that spreads hate, intolerance and violence, just like the Nazis.
This is not so much an oppinion as an easily observable fact for anyone who bothers taking their time into the history of Israel, the "peace process" as well as the Sionist movement.
All arguements in favor of Israel falls short and are easily disproven, which is why they usually just harass anyone who criticizes them and call them "anti-semitic".

This intro screams anti semitic..I'm not suggesting you are and I know your probibly LOLing at the assertion but this intro is head in the sand ignorant at best.



Not sure if Uke_master is still reading this thread but these types of posts are what I was referring to. Yeah posters love to drop in and criticize Gamblor for being so aggro but he's the only one that responds to the above types. They watch 30 mins of Finkelstein on youtube and assume it's 100% unbiased truth. After all he's a jew and even lost relatives in holocaust. How could he be nonobjective?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

Why are you trying to smear Finkelstein ? What facts has he stated which are actually untrue ?

I'm not trying to smear him or say he's full of ****. I'd say he's no more or less full of **** than Pape or Morris in that I'm in no position to challenge what facts he/they hold to be true. My point was that you don't watch 30 mins of his lecture and become an expert. It's clear that Fink believes above all other factors involved, that Israel must withdraw/allow complete freedom of movement in the entire of the WB EJ & Gaza. He supports the actions of Hamas/Hezbollah on the basis of their right to defend themselves against occupation of their land. You can say yeah it's the legal/right thing to do. I would ask him how much consideration the repercussions factor in.

Everything that spreads those three is Nazi? C'mon, talk sense.

And if you learn to avoid the N word, that charge will appear very empty. Although, maybe you're just being a straight shooter.

Who exactly are you trying to persuade? What's the audience for your choice of words?

I think all rational people would like to see the Palestinians get proper independence or full citizenship of a reunified Israel/Palestine state. What's your vision for them? Never-ending control by the Israelis ?

My vision would be a 2 state solution with a divided Jerusalem, very limited ROR and Palestinian sovereignty over Ariel.

The problem is that an unconditional withdraw will do nothing but strengthin opposition to the concept of a Jewish state. I don't oppose a jewish state and I therefore acknowledge the fact that it is a catch22 for Israelis. You can say well the Palestinians are suffering so Israelis should join them in the interest of fairness. Well I'm not going to hate on a government that values its own. Maybe I would if you can show me any one country that doesnt put a higher value on its own.

I know that is the fear, but my impression is that most Palestinians just want normalcy. More and more would even accept Israeli citizenship. There's a lot of such sentiment to build on. Would this alternative really be worse than the SQ? Nothing's going to happen without risks.

Time will tell, but it may be a moot point, there is too little, or soon will be to little, Palestine left to be a state, so Israelis need to start adjusting to a binational future.

Would it be worse for Israelis? That's not me asking as if that matters more than it should. It's not a question of fairness. You have Israel in a position of realitive security now. It's a democracy filled with people very much in fear. Your asking a government with the power to dictate the status quo to have a heart and gamble on the security of its citizens. I just don't see Israel feeling compelled to change the status quo until it's concerns are addressed.

Can those concerns be addressed? yes they can...it starts with recognizing the validity of the concerns. Israels call for "recognition as a Jewish state" is not a ploy to continue the status quo. I mean if you oppose the concept of a jewish state than thats your perogative but it's not just an issue designed to avoid compromise.

Israel is changing the status quo every day by taking more of the West Bank illegally. There is no validity to taking your neighbours' land settling on it whilst dominating your neighbour by brute force, it's unequivocally wrong. As for Israel being a Jewish state what about all the non-Jews living in Israel ? Aren't they entitled to consider the country to be theirs as well ? The twenty-first century is not about mono-ethnic countries. People move about these days. I'm sure British Jews would not like it if Britain said the country was not theirs and never would be theirs.

The rest of your post is obviously ridiculous, but I wanted to address this specifically.

That is exactly what has been said. While Britain is tolerant of Jews the country is undeniably Christian. The most obvious and shining example is, as always, statutory holidays. Christmas, Easter, etc. etc. are days off from work - and mean precisely squat to Jews. Yet in America, in Canada, in the UK, worldwide, Jews are constantly forced to choose between careers and their religion. Religious Jews especially simply can't work at time-intensive jobs because the markets and business are open on their holidays.

It's just an example.

When a Jewish investment banker working 100 hours a week can take 2 days off for Rosh hashana because the markets are closed, I'll accept that Britain is a truly multicultural country.

See, you're misunderstanding the point - there are no purely secular, multicultural, non-ethic/religiously affiliated countries - only countries that tolerate minorities. And some subscribe to Western liberal ideals (or some compromise thereof), and some don't.

It's not even like you respect both days - its only Christian holidays.

Of course, the circumcision debate and the kosher slaughter debate are also front and centre here having been banned in so-called tolerant countries like Germany and the Netherlands.

For someone who claims to be so tolerant of minorities, I'd expect you not to be so ignorant of the restrictions, inconveniences, and hardships minorities face even in supposedly "liberal" countries.

uke_master?

what? You realize that other people saying idiotic hyperpartisan things does not in anyway justify YOU saying idiotic hyperpartisan things, right? If you want to lay into someone for a stupid post, go right at it, and point out their idiocy. I am not your personal whip.